Bobsprit is as confused about movies as he is about
sailboats and sailing.

It is apparent from his posts that he confuses the
novels movies are loosely inspired by with the
movie itself. Booby seems offended when a
movie is anything more or less than a duplicate
of the novel.

I can understand why he is confused about this.
He has no imagination. He cannot enjoy theatre
of the mind. A novel is theatre of the mind while
a movie is theatre of some dweeb director's
mindless interpretation of a book.

Booby knows not the difference between the two.

CN
"Overproof" wrote in message news:Lapsd.229838$df2.178821@edtnps89...

"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
Chronicles of Riddick was pretty good but not as
good as Van Helsing.


No wonder literature and reading are dying when people think Van Helsing
is a
good movie.

It's obvious ...as I've stated before.... that you have no taste... other
than that which keeps you forever at the level of a pretentious critic with
no comprehension of the subject discussed!

CM

But you're confused about your sexual orientation. That's much worse.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message
...


Bobsprit is as confused about movies as he is about
sailboats and sailing.

It is apparent from his posts that he confuses the
novels movies are loosely inspired by with the
movie itself. Booby seems offended when a
movie is anything more or less than a duplicate
of the novel.

I can understand why he is confused about this.
He has no imagination. He cannot enjoy theatre
of the mind. A novel is theatre of the mind while
a movie is theatre of some dweeb director's
mindless interpretation of a book.

Booby knows not the difference between the two.

CN
"Overproof" wrote in message
news:Lapsd.229838$df2.178821@edtnps89...

"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
Chronicles of Riddick was pretty good but not as
good as Van Helsing.


No wonder literature and reading are dying when people think Van
Helsing
is a
good movie.

It's obvious ...as I've stated before.... that you have no taste...
other
than that which keeps you forever at the level of a pretentious critic
with
no comprehension of the subject discussed!

CM

so according to you all movies are based on books.
you really don't know or understand film, and apparently have no
comprehension what great film is about.
have you ever seen a film of kurasawa, de sica.............oh heck, let's
keep it simple: fellini?

gf.

"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message
...


Bobsprit is as confused about movies as he is about
sailboats and sailing.

It is apparent from his posts that he confuses the
novels movies are loosely inspired by with the
movie itself. Booby seems offended when a
movie is anything more or less than a duplicate
of the novel.

I can understand why he is confused about this.
He has no imagination. He cannot enjoy theatre
of the mind. A novel is theatre of the mind while
a movie is theatre of some dweeb director's
mindless interpretation of a book.

Booby knows not the difference between the two.

CN
"Overproof" wrote in message
news:Lapsd.229838$df2.178821@edtnps89...

"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
Chronicles of Riddick was pretty good but not as
good as Van Helsing.


No wonder literature and reading are dying when people think Van
Helsing
is a
good movie.

It's obvious ...as I've stated before.... that you have no taste...
other
than that which keeps you forever at the level of a pretentious critic
with
no comprehension of the subject discussed!

CM

Oh, hush. Get informed as to the contents of a thread before
jumping in and opening your ignorant snaggle-toothed yap.

The thread is about Dracula which is based on the novel by
Brahm Stoker.

CN


"gonefishiing" wrote in message ...

so according to you all movies are based on books.
you really don't know or understand film, and apparently have no
comprehension what great film is about.
have you ever seen a film of kurasawa, de sica.............oh heck, let's
keep it simple: fellini?

gf.

"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message
...


Bobsprit is as confused about movies as he is about
sailboats and sailing.

It is apparent from his posts that he confuses the
novels movies are loosely inspired by with the
movie itself. Booby seems offended when a
movie is anything more or less than a duplicate
of the novel.

I can understand why he is confused about this.
He has no imagination. He cannot enjoy theatre
of the mind. A novel is theatre of the mind while
a movie is theatre of some dweeb director's
mindless interpretation of a book.

Booby knows not the difference between the two.

CN
"Overproof" wrote in message
news:Lapsd.229838$df2.178821@edtnps89...

"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
Chronicles of Riddick was pretty good but not as
good as Van Helsing.


No wonder literature and reading are dying when people think Van
Helsing
is a
good movie.

It's obvious ...as I've stated before.... that you have no taste...
other
than that which keeps you forever at the level of a pretentious critic
with
no comprehension of the subject discussed!

CM

The thread is about Dracula which is based on the novel by
Brahm Stoker.

And Van Helsing also borrowed from Hyde and Frankenstein tales as well.
Gonefishing can't follow the thread.

RB

have you ever seen a film of kurasawa, de sica.............oh heck, let's
keep it simple: fellini?


I've seen all of Kurawsawa's work on the big screen, and some restored cuts
you've never seen.
As for great film being based on literature, yes, most is. Literature and
written story structure, later adapted for film, existed long before.

Next?

RB

most film is historically based on literature
there are many great films that are not.
great or ground breaking cinema can operate completely independent from
literature.
simple statement

gf.

"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
have you ever seen a film of kurasawa, de sica.............oh heck, let's
keep it simple: fellini?


I've seen all of Kurawsawa's work on the big screen, and some restored
cuts
you've never seen.
As for great film being based on literature, yes, most is. Literature and
written story structure, later adapted for film, existed long before.

Next?

RB

most film is historically based on literature
there are many great films that are not.
great or ground breaking cinema can operate completely independent from
literature.

Except that no one teaches your statement. Story structure came before film.
Film has always drawn on literature, whether it's experimental or mainstreat.
And in case you didn't notice, we discussing a specific film here, so I have no
idea what you're all worked up about. Try following the thread next time.

RB

worked up? about you disagreeing?
nah............not in the slightest.
don't take yourself so seriously there bobby

can you tell me what literature this is based on?:
i'm out of here for the night

scene 1
snow on the ground outside
a gritty street
a mirror on a wall
a door to the right
dimly lit room

a figure enters
leaves the room
and re-enters after a few seconds donning some sort of head gear, spouting
antennas and colored googles.
a propeller on top.

slowly at first, music can be heard
the volume increases
until the space is filled with sound
the jim morrision/doors track from Apacolypse Now

he gazes in the mirror with an expression of satisfaction
ready to take on battle.

he takes a seat, which wobbles under his wieght
in front of him is a
keyboard and monitor, a Titanium 10000 6800ghz machine
a 7/11 Big Gulp
digital surround sound Maguisum speakers line the walls on both sides


with a single finger he slowly searches the keyboard


and types:



B



O



B


S


P


R


I



T









"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
most film is historically based on literature
there are many great films that are not.
great or ground breaking cinema can operate completely independent from
literature.

Except that no one teaches your statement. Story structure came before
film.
Film has always drawn on literature, whether it's experimental or
mainstreat.
And in case you didn't notice, we discussing a specific film here, so I
have no
idea what you're all worked up about. Try following the thread next time.

RB